Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. a. Applicant's arguments, filed on 12/26/2025 with respect to the pending claims in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) or rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
b. Regarding claim 28, the Applicant argues that Worters fails to teach all the claimed limitation in claim 28. The Examiner maintains that Worters equivalently discloses all the claimed limitations in claim 28 therefore the rejection is being maintained as shown below and the Office Action is being made FINAL as shown below.
c. The rejection of all the dependent claims, by virtue of their dependency from the independent claims, is also being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Worters et al., (US 11,985,611 B1), (hereinafter, Worters) in view of Farag et al., (US 2022/0046574), (hereinafter, Farag)
Regarding claim 1, Worters discloses an apparatus for wireless communication
(= method 700 may be performed by one or more computing device or apparatuses, see col. 22, lines 36-37), comprising:
at least one transceiver;
one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver and, from a high-altitude platform station (HAPS), motion information associated with the HAPS (= user terminal receives a downlink radio frame from a satellite, see col. 20, lines 55-64; and user terminal can remove a frequency offset from the down radio frame ; user can calculate the frequency offset based on position of the user terminal and the ephemeris of the satellite, e.g., satellite position and velocity, see col. 21, lines 4-8) and
communicate, via the at least one transceiver, with the HAPS using motion information (= user terminal determine a downlink propagation delay associated with the downlink radio frame and an uplink propagation delay associated an uplink radio frame from the user terminal to the satellite; the propagation delays can be determined based on a velocity of the satellite and the distance between the user terminal, see col. 21, lines 17-25; and transmitting by the user terminal, the uplink radio frame at a time corresponding to the uplink transmission delay, see col. 22, lines 26-29; and col. 11, lines 31-38).
Worters explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of: wherein the HAPS is on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 kilometers relative to Earth.
However, Farag, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the HAPS is on an object at an altitude of 20 to 50 kilometers relative to Earth” (see, [0085-86, 0099 and 0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Farag with Worters for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides an enhanced handover performance in a connected mode.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information comprises information associated with at least one of a position of the HAPS, an altitude of the HAPS, or a velocity of the HAPS (see, col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 1, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information is received via at least one of a broadcast transmission of a system information block, a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element, or a downlink control information transmission (see, col. 11, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 1, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information comprises at least one of a target position indication that indicates a target position of the HAPS or a deviation indication that indicates a deviation of the HAPS from the target position (see, col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 5, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information is received via at least one of a first communication that includes the target position indication; or a second communication that includes the deviation indication (see, col. 12, line 40- col. 13, line 2).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 6, Worters further discloses the apparatus wherein the first communication comprises a first system information block (SIB) and the second communication comprises a second SIB that is different from the first SIB (= downlink and uplink transmission, see col. 9, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 5, Worters discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information is received via at least one of at least one instance of a first communication that includes the target position indication; or a plurality of instances of a second communication that include the deviation indication (= downlink and uplink transmission, see col. 9, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 8, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one instance of the first communication is received based at least in part on a first repetition frequency, and wherein the plurality of instances of the second communication are received based at least in part on a second repetition frequency that is higher than the first repetition frequency (see col. 4, lines 5-8 and col. 8, lines 58-65).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 1, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the motion information comprises a trajectory indication that indicates at least one of trajectory information associated with the HAPS or a sequence of position indications, wherein each position indication indicates a position of the HAPS at a corresponding time instant (see col. 12, lines 40-49 and col. 16, lines 48-62).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 10, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein each position indication comprises a time instant indication that indicates the respective corresponding time instant (see col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 10, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the time instant indication indicates the respective corresponding time instant in accordance with a coordinated universal time (see col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 10, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein each position indication comprises an implicit indication that indicates the respective corresponding time instant (see col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 13, Worters further discloses the apparatus, wherein the implicit indication comprises an indication of a downlink frame boundary (see col. 12, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 1, Worters discloses that the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is configured as a user equipment (see col. 21, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 30, as mentioned in claim 6, Worters discloses that the apparatus, wherein the motion information is received via the first communication and the second communication (see col. 21, lines 4-8).
3. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Worters and Farag in view of Lucky et al., (US 2019/0041526), (hereinafter, Lucky).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 10, the combination of Worters and Farag explicitly fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to output for transmission, while operating in a radio resource control connected mode, a trajectory indication request, and wherein the motion information is obtained based at least in part on the trajectory indication request.
However, Lucky, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to output for transmission, while operating in a radio resource control connected mode, a trajectory indication request, and wherein the motion information is obtained based at least in part on the trajectory indication request (see, [0038, 0087-88 and 0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lucky with Worters and Farag for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes management of ephemeris information for satellite communication.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 10, the combinatioin of Worters and Farag explicitly fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to communicate with the HAPS based at least in part on at least one trajectory, the at least one trajectory being based on the trajectory indication.
However, Lucky, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to communicate with the HAPS based at least in part on at least one trajectory, the at least one trajectory being based on the trajectory indication (see, [0038, 0087-88 and 0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lucky with Worters and Farag for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes management of ephemeris information for satellite communication.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 10, the combination of Worters and Farag explicitly fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to perform an interpolation operation associated with the trajectory indication, wherein the at least one trajectory is based on the interpolation operation.
However, Lucky, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to perform an interpolation operation associated with the trajectory indication, wherein the at least one trajectory is based on the interpolation operation (see, [0137 and 0142-43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Lucky with Worters and Farag for the benefit of achieving a communication system that includes management of ephemeris information for satellite communication.
4. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Worters et al., (US 11,985,611 B1), (hereinafter, Worters).
Regarding claim 28, Worters discloses a station, comprising: one or more transceivers;
one or more memories comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the station to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers motion information associated with the station (= user terminal receives a downlink radio frame from a satellite, see col. 20, lines 55-64; and user terminal can remove a frequency offset from the down radio frame ; user can calculate the frequency offset based on position of the user terminal and the ephemeris of the satellite, e.g., satellite position and velocity, see col. 21, lines 4-8) and
communicate, via the one or more transceivers, with at least one user equipment (UE) using the motion information (= user terminal receives a downlink radio frame from a satellite, see col. 20, lines 55-64; and user terminal can remove a frequency offset from the down radio frame ; user can calculate the frequency offset based on position of the user terminal and the ephemeris of the satellite, e.g., satellite position and velocity, see col. 21, lines 4-8).
Worters explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of: “wherein the transmission occurs at an altitude of 20 to 50 kilometers relative to Earth”.
However, Worters equivalently mentioned a satellite-based communication environment 150 can include plurality of SATs 102A-N orbiting Earth in, for example and without limitation, a non-geostationary orbit constellation (see, col. 5, lines 62-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Worters achieving a system that can prevent uplink transmission from overlapping in time frequency thereby mitigating interference and enabling multiple user terminals to be allocated different time slots without gaps between them.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. a. Claims 19-21, 23-26 and 29 are allowable.
b. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights